EVE Search - Assault Frigate Boost Feedback

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Assault Frigate Boost Feedback

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)

CCP Chronotis	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:21:00 - [1] One of the upcoming changes we previously mentioned on the features & ideas forum and discussed with the CSM which we want to try out on singularity and gather public feedback on is a boost to assault frigates. We will add a 15% afterburner speed boost bonus per racial frigate level. This means each assault frigate will get a 75% bonus since racial frigate V is a pre-requisite to fly the ship. The intention is that the assault frigates will be able to close range on their targets to bring their damage to bear and increase their survivability on account of their increased speed and reduced signature radius factor whilst using afterburners. This is not a final solution and we are aware of related issues such as rocket performance but we have been impressed with the results so far internally that we want to move to the next phase and see what you all think. This change should hit singularity over the next few days and your constructive feedback is welcome!

Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:24:00 - [2] \o/ Thanks Chronotis, much appreciated. Didn't expect such a fast answer on that one.
Opertone Caldari Monsters	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:30:00 - [3] Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 20:34:50 Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 20:33:16 Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 20:30:45 yes, it sounds mega awesome! I already use afterburners on my assault frigates and this makes them viable against larger craft. If assault is about doing damage and advancing in position, afterburners will greatly help to close in on the target, while high resistances will make straight forward assaults more likely to be successful under heavy (0 transversal) point blank damage. What all assault ships could use is a 50% buffer in tanked hit points (just shield or armor), because more often they employ a plate to compensate for high light drone DPS. added: Assault ships could get half hit points in no specialized field, example retribution employes extra heavy armor (twice the hit points), but has around 135 hp in shields as a drawback. If there is a swarm of drones, assault ships can be gone in the matter of seconds. While bigger buffer gives them some chance. Provided that assault ships always fight under the guns and evade enemy tracking.
Opertone Caldari Monsters	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:38:00 - [4] harpy and hawk should have more shields like 1700 hp (lower regeneration) but considerably less armor to compensate for this. This will not offset assault ships much, but will add much needed survivability in harsh combat, and these ships are built to withstand punishment up close.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.09.15 20:46:00 - [5] And what counters do you envision to AB AFs that can catch MWD cruisers? With AB the capacitor will be more than capable of running any mods regardless of neutralization. No medium guns and few smalls will be able to track unwebbed (will need two on most AFs) targets. Speed/tank/dps is more than enough to kill/avoid any drone that a victim might launch. Want to know what counters AF's going 1.5-2k/s with no signature increase? A big fat nothing. Example: I have tried battling an AB Firetail in FW using everything from cruisers to interceptors. Firetail goes 2k/s, has small shield booster and scram. Everytime I close in mwd ship he pulls away when mwd is killed, no AB ship can keep up and end up being kited or having to warp out. His small booster is more than capable of keeping him alive due to low incoming dps from signature/tracking. You want this on T2 ships which have high damage and massive tanks for their size .. good luck balancing yourselves out of that one. It will be awesome fun for the AF pilots but hugely frustrating for everything else. Your first step should be to make all ship bonuses retroactive so that cruisers get their weapon bonuses using frigate guns and BS get bonuses using cruiser/frigate guns .. probably wont be enough but will be a start.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:00:00 - [6] 1. There is no balance problem with Assault Frigates or with AB's on Assault Frigates at the moment, hence, trying to solve/rebalance this is folly. I honestly haven't heard anybody complain about it, and most AB fit AF's can speed/tracking tank ships with medium-size guns at the moment. I don't see the problem it is trying to solve. 2. I don't think AF with afterburners should outrunning AB frigates and interceptors. It gives AF's a (too) large boost against these types of ships, not just against the bigger targets you apparently have in mind. 3. Choice is good. This big a specific boost to AF speed more or less forces Assault Frigates to fit AB's, since the net gain of an MWD would be negligible and no propulsion mod on small ships not viable. Hence the boost reduces reasonable fitting options, you might as well weld an AB into AF's. This is not good. We had that problem with MWD's before, having really no choice but to fit and MWD. 4. Neutralizer's are the AF's bane, not a lack of closing speed. 5. Closing speed is only important against range and speed fitted cruiser-size and bigger ships. The majority of cruiser-size and bigger ships that are not range and speed fitted, they will engage the AF within web range, hence the boost to speed is not needed to close distance with these types of ships. Additionally, I believe if a cruiser-size or bigger ships is designed to stay out of web/scram range of an AB AF, I think it should. People can dual-drive AF's if they really want to get that extra speed, or simply use a frigate or interceptor with AB to tackle. 6. AF's will displace AB fit frigates (mostly) and AB fit interceptors (somewhat) as close range tacklers. These ships have primarily a tackling role in fleet fights, I don't think AB's should usurp that role. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Opertone Caldari Monsters	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:02:00 - [7] Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 21:07:32 this is no victim case, assault frigates often go into a cloud of 15-20 drones in small packs until heavier ships can arrive. the cloud of drones kills them not solo ship... nothing wrong from fitting the role they are intended to be, dogfighting and being good at that. first off, interceptors may catch anyone and everyone, MWD frigate is still faster than AF with AB... HACs and Cruisers should not be the bigger the better, they will have little foes who can keep up with them doing 2200 m/s with just an afterburner. second, solo AF will never break the tank of a HAC, it has very little chance against missile spam or drone clouds. Many larger ships now have web bonuses, Larger ships will no longer be solo boats, they will need support frigates in gangs and destroyers that can take care of frigates best.
Alexeph Stoekai Stoekai Corp	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:23:00 - [8] /me goes to prepare for the coming of the second Nano Age - now with extra tank.
pyyKtas	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:28:00 - [9] Originally by: Opertone Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 21:09:31 Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 21:07:32 second, solo AF will never break the tank of a HAC, it has very little chance against missile spam or drone clouds. Wanna bet on it? Most hacs use passive tanking, which is easy to break. And 1 small rep+small sig and crazy speed can easily hold against any t2 small/med/large drones and transversal to avoid turrets.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:31:00 - [10] Edited by: Merdaneth on 15/09/2009 21:33:33 Originally by: Opertone this is no victim case, assault frigates often go into a cloud of 15-20 drones in small packs until heavier ships can arrive. Faster AB's don't help against drones, and they don't help against neutralizers. If you want to solve the drone problem, you need another solution. I believe the problem CCP is trying to solve is the tackle problem. Thus you should ask the questions: 1. Is it the AF role to be a primary tackler of MWD Cruisers and up? 2. Is the speed the biggest problem in tackling such ships? I believe 'no' is the answer to both questions. Originally by: Opertone first off, interceptors may catch anyone and everyone, MWD frigate is still faster than AF with AB... AB frigates (and interceptors) were really not viable before. They are now, I don't think AB AF's should usurp the role of AB close range tackler. Originally by: Opertone HACs and Cruisers should not be the bigger the better, they will have little foes who can keep up with them doing 2200 m/s with only an afterburner. As someone who has been using AB Interceptors for 1.5 years now (yes, before the speed changes), I can honestly say you don't need 2000 m/s to catch an MWD cruiser. Neuts and drones, those are your biggest enemies, right before cruisers fitting small guns. The speed is rarely the most important issue. I don't know who in the CSM proposed this, and who really has a problem with AF AB speeds, but I really like them to come forward and explain the issue and sketch their experiences. Originally by: Opertone second, solo AF will never break the tank of a HAC, it has very little chance against missile spam or drone clouds. Even my AB Crusader can do this, most AB AF's can certainly do this. Is it hard: yes. Should it be hard: yes. Is the problem speed: no. The problem is surviving drones and neuts. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery

The Djego Minmatar Hellequin Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:34:00 - [11] Awsome. Any chance CCP takes also a look into the Enyo and the Hawk, since they both lack compared her own race 2. choices as well as compared with other races? 2. Med on the Retrebution would also be nice. ---- Nerf Tank - Boost Gank! Originally by: Amantus Real men don't need to get into blaster range.
Lumy Minmatar Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:35:00 - [12] Hi Chronotis. While you're up to the AFs, could you ask around what was behind CCP's reasoning when they were assigning bonuses to Wolf and Jaguar? Because for many people it just doesn't make any sense. Jaguar is clearly the speedy one of the pair. With plenty slots for the tackle and decent shield buffer it makes natural close range AC brawler/tackler. On the other hand, Wolf with abundance of low slots (for tracking enhancers, gyros) seems to be more suited to be artillery boat. You know, the roles similar to Vagabond and Muninn respectively. Yet, optimal bonus for Jaguar and fallof for Wolf suggets the exact opposite. So, WHY? Joomla! in EVE - IGB compatible CMS.
Hirana Yoshida Behavioral Affront	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Opertone AB AF Defense Not sure we are playing the same game since the conditions you mention are so far removed from what I have experienced. An AF can currently relatively easily tank 6-7 Warrior IIs, small drones are killed in one volley by most AFs and this is done on approach. Drones are a non issue for an experienced AF pilot. What HACs/Cruisers even break 2k/s apart from Stabbers and Vagabonds? You need a purely speed dedicated fit to get there. Watch the Sunday matches from the tournament. 2 Retributions and a drone-less rail Ishkur ripped apart a Drake and shield buffer Sin in no time flat. I can break a MAR/EANM/DCU Zealot tank in a Slicer without ever having to overload for Goddess sake. An AB 100dps Punisher can perma-tank a HML Cerberus, do you really think that upping speed and resists will change that in negative fashion? Only web bonuses that I am aware off are the Minmatar Recons and some of the Marauders. A few pirate ships most likely get some as well but that is about it. Very limited selection and only about half with a web strength bonus. An AB boost of the magnitude mentioned will effectively reinstate the nano-age just one ship-class lower. Unkillable ships able to kill and disengage almost at will. Let's not.
Xahara StarFleet Enterprises Libertas Fidelitas	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:41:00 - [14] Originally by: pyyKtas Originally by: Opertone Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 21:09:31 Edited by: Opertone on 15/09/2009 21:07:32 second, solo AF will never break the tank of a HAC, it has very little chance against missile spam or drone clouds. Wanna bet on it? Most hacs use passive tanking, which is easy to break. And 1 small rep+small sig and crazy speed can easily hold against any t2 small/med/large drones and transversal to avoid turrets. This calls for moar tracking on medium turrets :D
DigitalCommunist November Corporation	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:47:00 - [15] I like this change. It helps AF in a simple and immediate way. Though AF suck mainly because they can't rely on their superior hitpoints for longevity, as even the beefiest frig is fodder for any decent cruiser. Leveraging better speed or sig:speed ratio is nice, but its kind of borrowing a page from Interceptors. One day I'd like to see an increased gap between classes so that countering enemy ships with ship from the same class is more efficient than loading up webs/drones/neuts in a larger ship.
MalVortex Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2009.09.15 21:50:00 - [16] Retribution will still be utterly useless unless it gets a second medslot.
Merdaneth Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:00:00 - [17] Originally by: DigitalCommunist I like this change. It helps AF in a simple and immediate way. Though AF suck mainly because they can't rely on their superior hitpoints for longevity, as even the beefiest frig is fodder for any decent cruiser. Leveraging better speed or sig:speed ratio is nice, but its kind of borrowing a page from Interceptors. As you said yourself, it the longevity (hit point wise and often cap-wise) that makes them a problem. Superior AB speed doesn't solve the problem you indicate. Hence the AB speed solution doesn't fit the problem. And as you said as well, they are borrowing from the interceptor/speedy frig, which devalues those ships. Having considered both, I'm at a loss why you like this solution, since it doesn't solve your problem and create other problems besides. ____ The Illusion of Freedom \| The Truth about Slavery
Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:01:00 - [18] Hillarious. But as you pointed makes rockets utterly useless. Hope their fix will come along with Dominion.
hackzor nstuff Amarr	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:02:00 - [19] if you would like to fix the AF then fix the amarr AF's one is a rocket boat and the other only has 1 mid :( which means ether no firepower or having to choose between tackle or speed
Alekseyev Karrde Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:06:00 - [20] Edited by: Alekseyev Karrde on 15/09/2009 22:06:50 Best concept bonus you could come up with! The only thing that might need looking at is if 15% is a bit too much, and if it should be reduced to 10/7.5/5% Keep the concept of boost to AB speed though, it's what they need to differentiate themselves from interceptors. I think after this the Enyo will finally see use instead of being the ship you fly if the Taranis isnt on the market anywhere in EVE. EDIT: Rockets need work generally, but yes it does affect the Vengeance very hard in partic. I think it should be looked at as a weapon class not as a factor involved in the AF balance --- Zombie Apocalypse Guitar-Wielding Superteam

Kadesh Priestess Scalding Chill	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:07:00 - [21] Agreed, 15% may be too much. I like idea of its reduction to 5-10% per level and adding slight web speed reduction resistance.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:23:00 - [22] Ha ha. So now the AB AF becomes the best tackle ship, with twice the interceptor DPS, thrice the EHP, and basically double the sig tank and cannot be stopped by scrams? I'm sortof glad I've got a snakeset and AF V, but seriously now I mean, a webbed AF will go 1km/s Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Fille Balle Ballbreakers R us	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:24:00 - [23] Agreed! Thank very much! Just what I always wanted.
SuiJuris Absinthe Brothers Consortium	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:32:00 - [24] I for one welcome our new AF overlords. --- I am taking pre orders for Navy Armageddons
Nicole Graves Caldari ForgeTech Industries	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:33:00 - [25] Could you look at the hawk please. It seems to be missing a bonus.
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:36:00 - [26] Originally by: Alekseyev Karrde I think after this the Enyo will finally see use instead of being the ship you fly if the Taranis isnt on the market anywhere in EVE. You do realize small blasters are utterly useless when it takes mere seconds to get away from small blaster range in another af, provided you have a web which you don't? Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint
Kesper North Caldari Epiphyte Mining and Exploration Majesta Empire	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:41:00 - [27] What the Retribution really needs is a second midslot. Not being able to fit tackle makes them utterly pointless for anything except grinding standings in level 2s. -- Killed me? Read about it in my blog! Northern Lights: Solo PVP in EVE Online
jerosentar	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:43:00 - [28] Well CCP it seems you are getting a good share of yes and no, I think you are on the right track. However could you state the simple reason for this . . . someone mentioned it befor -> larger ships will now be more likely have to have an AF to gank with. and why 15% instead of 10 % ? I like the over all idea,
Meissa Anunthiel	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:43:00 - [29] Interceptors still get to use MWDs more efficiently due to the decreased sig radius penalty (and thus go faster), still have better scan resolution for faster locking, still have more agility for faster orbit and have faster warp speed. both are still significantly slower than light drones. So yeah, T1 cruisers may die to T2 frigs. Just like BS may die to HACs. Will reserve final judgement until I can fly them on SiSi
Cpt Branko Beyond Divinity Inc Beyond Virginity	Posted - 2009.09.15 22:46:00 - [30] Originally by: jerosentar someone mentioned it befor -> larger ships will now be more likely have to have an AF to gank with. Or just two AFs. Don't need scouts, cannot be caught at camps, lock faster, tackle faster, outrun tracking of even small guns, etc... oh, well. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint



Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 21 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.